Agenda item

1.    The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 18/01646/HOUSE in respect of the removal of a conservatory and replacement with part one part two storey extension at Oakville, Ashmore Green Road in Ashmore Green.

2.    In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Bernard Clark, Parish Council representative and Mr and Mrs Mercer, applicants, addressed the Committee on this application.

3.    Michael Butler introduced the report and update sheet to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was unacceptable and a conditional approval was not justifiable. Officers on balance recommended the Committee refuse planning permission.

4.    Councillor Clark in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The Parish Council unanimously supported the application and had been surprised the recommendation was for refusal.

·         Other extensions in the area had been approved although they had a far greater impact.

·         The planning officer at the site visit had caused confusion regarding the size of the extension.

·         While the parish council had considered the neighbour’s point of view, they had formed the view that the proposal would not be overbearing on the neighbour and there was a large gap between the houses.

5.    Councillor Clive Hooker asked what the parish council had considered to be the neighbour’s view of a large extension next door. Councillor Clark advised he saw a wall as an advantage over a fence.

6.    Mr and Mrs Mercer in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The design adhered to relevant guidelines and the plans had been amended from a previous application to reduce the ridge line.

·         Guidance in relation to overshadowing did not relate to secondary windows to the side of a property and so should not be considered. A shadow study had been completed and while there would be some loss of light, the impact would be minimal.

·         There would be a beneficial impact on overlooking as the applicants would no longer be able to see into the neighbour’s living room.

·         Of 18 similar applications in the area, none had been refused.

·         The plot could comfortably accommodate the extension and it would not have a detrimental impact on the area.

7.    Councillor Garth Simpson asked how confident the applicants were about the results of the shadow study. Mrs Mercer responded that the architect had used a modelling tool and while they accepted there would be some overshadowing it would be a minimal amount to secondary windows and none to primary windows. Mrs Mercer reported that they had observed the current shadowing on 21 September 2018 and stated that the modelled impact had been overestimated.

8.    Councillor Simpson further asked whether planning officers had been supportive or suggested any mitigation measures. Mrs Mercer advised that officers had not explained the reason for the recommendation to refuse.

9.    Councillor Pick asked what distance the extension would be from the neighbour’s property. Mr Mercer advised it would be 4.2m. Councillor Pick further asked whether a figure was available in relation to the loss of light. Mr Mercer advised he could not quantify it but the model appeared to be pessimistic based on his observations.

10.Councillor Pick enquired upon the difference between this application and the previous application refused under delegated powers. Mrs Mercer advised that it was the same application and while they had intended to submit an appeal the deadline had been missed due to the architect’s personal circumstances.

11.Councillor Adrian Edwards asked why a Juliet balcony had been proposed. Mr Mercer advised that it would give the extension a contemporary look and reflect the extension of the neighbouring property.

12.Councillor Hooker asked whether the proposals were discussed with the neighbour. Mrs Mercer confirmed that an amicable conversation had been held before submission of the application. The neighbour had not suggested any changes to make the application more palatable and had confirmed they had submitted an objection to the applicant via text message.

13.Councillor Simpson in addressing the Committee as Ward Member raised the following points:

·         The reasons for refusal were sweeping. The design was better than other extensions and there was a need to be consistent with other permissions in the area.

·         The shadow study and images used in the applicant’s presentation were useful.

·         The proposal had not been accurately described at the site visit.

·         The gap between properties would be maintained and vegetation would offer screening.

·         The proposal complied with the Council’s policies.

14.Turning to questions to officers, Councillor Clive Hooker requested clarification on the distance between properties. Michael Butler advised that the plans he had in front of him had been photocopies and were not scalable so would accept the applicant’s assertion that the distance was 4.2m.

15.Councillor Bryant asked why the Juliet balcony was considered harmful; Michael Butler advised that it would increase the propensity of the occupants to use it as a viewpoint compared to a normal window. While overlooking was important it was a secondary reason to refuse compared to the overshadowing.

16.Councillor James Cole asked what officers’ reactions were to assertions that the proposals were less imposing than other extensions in the area. Michael Butler advised that officers had come to a balanced view in making their recommendation.

17.Councillor Beck asked whether the Committee were entitled to take into account the effect of overshadowing on the secondary windows. Michael Butler advised that officers considered that the loss of light to the whole of the neighbour’s property was unacceptable.

18.In relation to paragraph 6.3.2 of the committee report, Councillor Simpson questioned the assertion that vegetation would not mitigate the harm of overlooking. Michael Butler stated that officers accepted that overlooking was a secondary reason for refusal and noted that it would be possible for the applicant or any future landowner to cut down trees if they wished.

19.Councillor Simpson further questioned the perceived loss of light described in paragraph 6.3.4 of the committee report. Michael Butler advised that the case officer had formed a view but the Committee were at liberty to disagree.

20.Councillor Simpson queried the view that there would be a negative impact on the street scene when the extension would be to the rear of the property, inset and with a lower ridge height than the main house. Michael Butler advised that impact on the street scene was not given as a reason for refusal.

21.Councillor Hooker enquired whether the Council undertook its own shadow studies. Michael Butler confirmed that planning officers rarely   undertook detailed shadow studies as this was time consuming and   they were expensive to contract out.

22.Councillor Pick asked officers to quantify the additional overshadowing. Michael Butler advised that he was not in a position to offer a figure.

23.In commencing the debate, Councillor von Celsing stated that she was surprised by the recommendation to refuse and proposed that the Committee reject the officers’ recommendation and grant planning permission, subject to appropriate conditions. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Pick.

24.Councillor Pick stated that homeowners were entitled to make alterations to their properties so long as it was not severely detrimental to others and this application was not.

25.Councillor Beck stated that he agree with the officers’ recommendations.

26.Councillor Paul Hewer expressed the view that it was a finely balanced case and as the objectors had not been present to express their view, he concurred with Councillor von Celsing’s proposal.

27.Councillor Simpson expressed the view that the evidence before the Committee had increased the grounds to grant planning permission.

28.The Chairman invited the Committee to vote on the proposal of Councillor von Celsing as seconded by councillor Pick to reject the officers’ recommendation and approve planning permission. At the vote the motion was carried. Councillor Beck voted against the proposal and Councillor Edwards abstained from voting.

RESOLVED that the Head of Development and Planning be authorised to grant subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

1.    The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this consent.

Reason:  To enable the Local Planning Authority to review the desirability of the development against Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026 should it not be started within a reasonable time.

2.    The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with drawings 345/P01, 02 and  03 received on 15 June 2018.

Reason: To accord with the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 and for the purpose of clarifying what has been approved under this consent in order to protect the character of the area.

3.    The materials to be used in this development shall be as specified on the plans or the application forms.

Reason:  In the interests of amenity in accordance with Policies CS14 and CS19 of West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

4.    The new en-suite window at first floor level in the north elevation shall be fitted with obscure glass,  before the extension hereby approved is occupied and the obscure glazing shall thereafter be retained in position to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.  Irrespective of the provisions of the current Town and Country Planning (General Development) Order 1995 (or any subsequent revision), no further openings shall be inserted within the northern or southern elevations of the development. 

Reason: To prevent overlooking of adjoining properties and in the interests of the amenity of neighbouring properties in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 and Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026